Search thousands of Speaker's rulings with AI-powered precision.
February 25, 1970
The return presented is obviously not in the conventional or traditional form. If a return is to be of any value to a Member it should be presented in a form that will convey to the Member the...
The Speaker ruled that tabling documents on microfilm is improper as returns must be presented in a form that is immediately interpretable without a mechanical device.
January 29, 1970
According to established practice, "The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand...
The Speaker ruled an amendment out of order because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown by altering the original purpose of a recommended charge.
January 15, 1970
Although this is a new form of amendment, it is not automatically out of order. Even if the amendment appears to be a statement or declaration of principle, rather than an amendment, it is, in...
A ruling clarifies that amendments at second reading must oppose a bill's principle and cannot simply seek to add new provisions.
December 17, 1969
Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Third Reading December 17, 1969 Journals pp. 220-1 Debates pp. 2099-100 Background During debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-171, an Act...
A motion to recommit a bill was ruled out of order because its instructions proposed amendments that went beyond the bill's established scope.
December 15, 1969
It is assumed that the proposal of Mr. Laprise is a subamendment as there is an amendment to the second reading motion already before the House. The sub amendment is irrelevant at this stage...
The Speaker ruled a subamendment out of order because it prematurely addressed specific bill clauses, a matter reserved for the committee stage.
November 28, 1969
It is difficult to imagine in order any amendment which might be proposed to "this type of very simple and basic motion to the effect that a certain document be referred to a committee". Certainly...
A 1969 ruling establishes that an amendment to a referral motion is out of order if it tries to instruct the committee on matters beyond the motion's scope.
November 10, 1969
Although the Standing Orders provide for the introduction of bills during Routine Proceedings, they do not allow for a motion to empower a committee to draw up a bill, nor is there any precedent...
The Speaker ruled a private member's motion to have a committee draft a bill out of order as it was procedurally unprecedented and exceeded the member's notice limit.
July 24, 1969
While the closure rule as it now stands is not without "uncertainty and pitfalls..., all precedents support the view that any amendment or other motion that may be proposed to a main motion comes...
This ruling confirms that a single closure motion applies to a main motion and all of its related amendments.
May 12, 1969
Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Third Reading May 12, 1969 Journals p. 1024 Debates pp. 8602, 8605 Background During debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-150, an Act to...
A ruling on the procedural admissibility of a motion to recommit a bill, focusing on whether the instructions to the committee exceeded the bill's scope.
May 12, 1969
Amendments to Motions on Progress of Bills / Third Reading May 12, 1969 Journals p. 1024 Debates p. 8595 Background During debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-150, an Act to amend the...
Analysis could not be completed as the provided text is a procedural heading, not a Speaker's Ruling.